Cleveland State University Cleveland State University

EngagedScholarship@CSU EngagedScholarship@CSU

ETD Archive

2009

The Examination of Threat and Affiliative Tendencies Through The Examination of Threat and Affiliative Tendencies Through

Pronoun Usage in Relation to Consumer Evaluations Pronoun Usage in Relation to Consumer Evaluations

Sarah M. DiGioia Cleveland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive

Part of the Psychology Commons

How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know! How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation DiGioia, Sarah M., "The Examination of Threat and Affiliative Tendencies Through Pronoun Usage in Relation to Consumer Evaluations" (2009). ETD Archive. 586. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/etdarchive/586

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in ETD Archive by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact library.es@csuohio.edu.

THE EXAMINATION OF THREAT AND AFFILIATIVE TENDENCIES THROUGH

PRONOUN USAGE IN RELATION TO CONSUMER EVALUATIONS

SARAH M. DIGIOIA

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Baldwin Wallace College

May, 2007

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY

at the

CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY

June, 2009

This thesis has been approved

on June 10th 2009

for the Department of PSYCHOLOGY

and the College of Graduate Studies by

Dr. Ernest Park Thesis Committee Chairperson

Dr. Brian Blake Committee Member

Dr. Michael Horvath Committee Member

iii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to gratefully acknowledge two former professors from Baldwin

Wallace College, Dr. Michelle Foust and Dr. Brian Thomas. With their support, I began

my journey as a graduate student and their guidance has meaningfully influenced my

efforts as a graduate student in Psychology.

I am heartily thankful to my enthusiastic supervisor, Dr. Ernest Park, whose

encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the final stages enabled me to

develop this thesis. The successful completion of this thesis would not have been

possible without the collaborative efforts of Dr. Park’s patience, encouragement, and time

spent while assisting me in my endeavors during this research process. His truly

scientific intuition has made him as a constant oasis of ideas and passions in science,

which exceptionally inspired and enriched my growth as a student and researcher. His

involvement with this thesis has triggered and nourished my intellectual maturity that I

will benefit from, for a long time to come.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Brian Blake and Dr. Michael

Horvath for their constructive feedback on this thesis. I am thankful that in the midst of

all their activity, they accepted to be members of my committee.

Finally, I am forever indebted to my family for their understanding, endless

patience and encouragement when it was most required. Where would I be without my

family? My parents deserve special mention for their unconditional support and prayers.

My father and mother instilled in me the framework of my learning character, showing

me the joy of intellectual pursuit. Words fail me to express my appreciation to my

siblings for their encouragement and persistent confidence in me.

iv

THE EXAMINATION OF THREAT AND AFFILIATIVE TENDENCIES THROUGH PRONOUN USAGE IN RELATION TO CONSUMER EVALUATIONS

SARAH M. DIGIOIA

ABSTRACT

This study further examines the relationship between threat and affiliative

tendencies. Under threat, there is a tendency to embrace others in efforts to reduce threat

and uncertainty. This study explores whether product advertisements that use inclusive

pronouns (e.g., we, our) lead products to be perceived as more attractive/valuable under

threat (compared to low threat). Therefore, this study employs a 2 (threat: low vs. high)

X 2 (ad reference frame: inclusive pronouns vs. 3rd person) between-subjects design.

Data from 145 university student participants were collected. To manipulate threat,

participants were told they would be taking part in a learning exercise and were

“randomly” assigned the role of the “learner”, while a participant in another room would

act as the “teacher” who would administer the punishment/reinforcement (e.g., sound

blasts) to the “learner”. Participants viewed one of two versions of an advertisement for a

hypothetical product. We expect that participants in the inclusive pronoun condition will

evaluate the product more positively and that the positive impact of inclusive pronoun

use will be stronger under high levels of threat. Analyses for the primary hypotheses

revealed some support and many exploratory analyses revealed significant results.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………... iii

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………... iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………... v

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………. vii

CHAPTER………………………………………………………………...….. 1

I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 1

Consumer Behavior…………………………………………………... 1

Threat/Uncertainty……………………………………………………. 8

Affiliation…………………………………………………………….. 12

The Meaning of a Message…………………………………………... 17

Rationale and Hypotheses……………………………………………. 25

II. METHOD…………………………………………………………….. 28

Participants and Design………………………………………………. 28

Measures and Materials………………………………………………. 29

Procedure……………………………………………………………... 32

III. RESULTS…………………………………………………………….. 36

Manipulation Checks…………………………………………………. 36

Primary Hypotheses…………………………………………………... 38

Exploratory Analyses…………………………………………………. 40

IV. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………… 44

V. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS……………………... 50

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………….. 53

vi

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………… 64

A. Tolerance for ambiguity…………………………………………... 65

B. Attachment style………………………………………………….. 67

C. Affiliative tendency………………………………………………. 68

D. Alleged partner profile (high threat condition)…………………… 70

E. Alleged partner profile (low threat condition)……………………. 71

F. Affective states……………………………………………………. 72

G. iPod advertisement: “we/our” source……………………………... 73

H. iPod advertisement: “RAH manufacturer” source………………... 74

I. Product evaluation………………………………………………... 75

J. Ad recognition items……………………………………………… 76

K. Demographic questions…………………………………………… 77

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Descriptives and Frequencies: Study Design……………………………… 78

II. Chi Square Test with item: “When describing the iPod, a lot of (1) we statements were used or (2) a lot of RAH statements were used”……………………….. 78

III. Chi-Square Test Statistics with item: “When describing the iPod, a lot of (a) we

statements were used or (b) a lot of RAH statements were used”…………… 78

IV. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group of people in it.”……………………………….. 78

V. One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit

group of people in it.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun Condition…………………………………………………………………. 78

VI. Independent Samples T-test with affective states: Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variances…………………………………………………………………….. 79

VII. Nonsignificant One-way ANOVA’s with affective states as the DV and threat as the IV:……………………………………………………………………… 79

VIII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “alert”……………. 79

IX. One-way ANOVA (one-tailed) with DV: “alert”: Tests of Between-Subjects

Effects for threat condition………………………………………………… 79

X. Nonsignificant One-way ANOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and threat as the IV:……………………………………………………………….. 80

XI. Correlation Matrix: Product Evaluation Items………………………………… 80

XII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “Desire to own

Composite”……………………………………………………………………… 80 XIII. One-way ANOVA (one-tailed) with DV: “Desire to own Composite” Tests of

Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun condition…………………………… 80 XIV. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “I think this iPod is priced

reasonably compared to other brands.”………………………………………. 81

XV. One-way ANOVA with DV: “I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun……………… 81

viii

XVI. Nonsignificant Interactions for Two-way ANOVA’s with product evaluation

items as the DV:…………………………………………………………….. 81 XVII. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.”………………………………………………………………………. 81

XVIII. Two-way ANOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects………………………………………………………………………… 82

XIX. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement was

difficult to read.”……………………………………………………………… 82

XX. One-way (one-tailed) ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement was difficult to read.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for threat………………………….. 82

XXI. Two-way ANOVA’s with ad recognition items as the DV’s…………………. 82 XXII. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANOVA with DV: “The make of this iPod

was RAH.”…………………………………………………………………….. 83

XXIII. Two-way ANOVA with DV: “The make of this iPod was RAH.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects…………………………………………………… 83

XXIV. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and ad

recognition composite as the covariate:………………………………………… 83 XXV. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANCOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.”

along with tolerance for ambiguity composite covariate ………………………. 84

XXVI. Two-way ANCOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.” along with tolerance for ambiguity composite covariate: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects………… 84

XXVII. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and tolerance for

ambiguity composite as the covariate:………………………………………….. 84

XXVIII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: attachment style……… 84

XXIX. One-way (one-tailed) ANOVA with DV: attachment style: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for threat………………………………………………………. 85

XXX. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and affiliative

tendency composite as the covariate:………………………………………….. 85

XXXI. Correlation Matrix: Affective States and Product Evaluation Items………… 85

ix

XXXII. Nonsignificant Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and affective state composite as the covariate:………………………………… 86

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Consumer Behavior

The goal of consumer behavior research is to understand the processes that are

involved when people select, purchase, or use products, services, or experiences to satisfy

desires or needs (Solomon, 2004). This is an important goal for marketers who aim to

create effective market strategies and wish to apply this type of knowledge to help

consumers make optimal decisions. Accomplishing this goal may not be as

straightforward as it sounds because interestingly, theories and research suggest that the

evaluations and decisions that consumers make are not always consciously guided

(Solomon, 2004). In fact, it’s common for consumers to be unsure about what they want,

and even if this is known, they may still be unsure about why they want it or why they

ended up purchasing it (Kotler & Armstrong, 2006). If consumer behavior operated

purely on a conscious level, there would be no difficulty accurately reporting such things.

This does not mean consumers are always mindless and acting and spending in a random

fashion. Many decisions and judgments outside the realm of consumer behavior, even

important and self-relevant ones are susceptible to influences outside of one’s conscious

awareness (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). This notion can be unsettling for some because

2

people generally feel and believe their attitudes, decisions, and actions result from

intention, deliberation, and volition. But on another level, this notion emphasizes the

importance and need for research related to consumer behavior.

Research on consumer behavior has made great strides in understanding how

situational influences that operate outside of awareness impact preferences and behaviors.

Studies have shown that product evaluations are derived from more than just the product

features themselves, and can be shaped by a range of “irrelevant” things such as the

temperature of the room, rarity of the product, popularity of the product,

positioning/display of the product, and so forth (Solomon, 2004). A recent study has

even shown that people judge orange juice to taste sweeter when a tasteless dye has been

added to make the color of the juice a brighter shade of orange (Hoegg & Alba, 2007).

These studies (along with many others) demonstrate that evaluations are not driven solely

by aspects of the products themselves (such as ingredients of the juice, etc), and highlight

the need for consumer behavior researchers to creatively identify and explore the various

factors that shape attitudes and decisions. Since many influences may be outside of one’s

conscious awareness, researchers and theorists who are equipped with proper knowledge,

skills, and ability play a valuable role in accurately deconstructing consumer tendencies.

There are a number of reasons why people themselves are often inaccurate or

incapable of properly deconstructing their experiences. One reason is the nature of the

human brain and how it works. Scientists across a number of disciplines (biology,

neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc.) have demonstrated that

the brain operates on multiple levels. One is an “adaptive unconscious” level and the

other is the more familiar “conscious” level (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). In the book,

3

“Blink” (Gladwell, 2005), the metaphor of an internal computer is applied to describe the

workings of the nonconscious mind. As such, this adaptive unconscious is described as a

giant computer that speedily, quietly, and efficiently processes a lot of the data people

need to function as human beings. Imagine a woman driving to work each morning. Her

unconscious mind is likely to be encoding a wealth of information. This part of her mind

may be processing information about the cars driving next to her, details of the scenery

that she passes as she commutes, etc. but the conscious part of her mind is unaware of all

of this type of information that is being gathered. Imagine what would happen if she was

aware of all of the information that her mind is processing. Her conscious mind would

probably be so overwhelmed she wouldn’t be able to drive very far without crashing.

There are functional reasons the mind operates how it does, even if that means

people will be subject to decisions that are beyond their conscious control, and decisions

that are fast and hasty. If a person is crossing the street and suddenly realizes a truck is

recklessly approaching, does the pedestrian have time to think and deliberate all of his or

her options? If all of mental life was deliberate, humans would not survive or thrive.

Presumably, the only way humans could survive as a species is by developing an

adaptive decision-making apparatus that’s capable of making quick judgments based on

very little information. This information processing apparatus (adaptive unconscious)

must inherently be outside of awareness, otherwise, conscious mental life would be filled

with too many distracting pieces of information, and would get bogged down and inhibit

humans from properly functioning. And because the mind engages in rapid nonconscious

processing, by nature, the conscious mind is unable to access this mental activity. So the

result of nonconscious operations may be consciously experienced (e.g., “I like the taste

4

of this Coke”), however, the processes leading to this outcome remain elusive from

awareness (e.g., why do I like the taste of this Coke?) and one can only speculate or apply

a priori theories to explain the situation (e.g., “The ingredients of Coke are just right”).

On a related note, another reason people are not always accurate when explaining

themselves is because people are generally unaware of the different ways in which they

process information. How information is processed impacts judgments and decisions. As

the name indicates, dual-process models state that there are two distinct forms of

information processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). One style is a deliberate and

controlled manner of information processing, labeled as central processing. When people

engage in central processing, they pay close attention to the content of information and

are deliberative in how they think. This form of processing is consciously guided,

effortful, and thus requires mental resources and motivation. Attitudes that are formed

via central processing are generally stable because they are based on information content,

and the quality and strength of arguments.

The other style of information processing is peripheral processing (also known as

heuristic processing), and this form is more automatic and nonconscious. Heuristics are

simple mental shortcuts that people use when making judgments under uncertainty

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). Because peripheral processing is automatic, uncontrolled,

and nonconscious, it is not dependent on mental resources. Peripheral processing leads

people to incorporate information that is “less central” to the issue at hand. Thus, when

one is engaged in peripheral processing, attitudes about a persuasive message may be

influenced by “peripheral” cues such as the quality of paper that the message is written

on, rather than the content and quality of the message itself (Petty & Wegener, 1999).

5

Peripheral processing is a fast and frugal way to organize and use information,

thus it is an efficient way to think, but one trade-off of the benefit of speed is accuracy.

While it seems counterintuitive to think people commonly engage in mental processes

that may lead to inaccurate judgments, peripheral processing is necessary because it helps

people conserve mental resources, which are limited in supply. Like the adaptive

unconscious, peripheral processing allows one to conserve mental energy so that the

conscious mind can be clear and use that energy to focus on important goals and tasks.

Integrating dual-process models of information processing have led to advances in

understanding consumer behavior (Petty & Wegener, 1999). Much of this research has

focused on identifying when people are likely to engage in peripheral processing, and

how various peripheral cues (also known as heuristics) subsequently guide product

evaluations (Petty & Wegener, 1999).

The way a message is interpreted by consumers can affect their judgments or

evaluations of a product (Solomon, 2004). For example, a consumer may think a

message or words on a package are clever and therefore view the product as likable.

During times of low involvement purchases, evaluations may be influenced by factors

that are not directly relevant to the product or its features. So, a message may influence

how a person feels about a product. In turn, psychological feelings and states can

influence a person’s perceptions. One reason this occurs is because mood states have

direct and indirect effects on behavior, evaluations, and recall (Gardner, 1985).

The mood-congruency hypothesis states that when people experience a specific

affective state, the corresponding emotion node is activated in the associative memory

network and cognitions associated with that emotion node become more accessible, or

6

come to mind more quickly (Pereg & Mikulincer, 2004). As a result, positive affect is

thought to increase the accessibility of positive cognitions, whereas negative affect

should heighten the accessibility of negative cognitions. For example, if a person is in a

positive mood, then positive memories and thoughts will be more salient or prominent.

This person will also be motivated to maintain his or her positive mood, and will

nonconsciously direct his or her attention to positive information and cues. So, if a

woman in a good mood is evaluating shoes, she will focus more on the positive aspects of

the shoes, such as things she likes rather than dislikes. Therefore, in this way, mood

influences evaluations.

A mood-congruency effect has been revealed in social judgments wherein people

evaluate others more favorably when they are in a good mood than when they are in a

bad mood (McFarland, White & Newth, 2003). For example, if a person is in a good

mood when meeting a new neighbor, he or she will more likely think more positively

about him or her. To support this notion, research indicates that moods may

automatically prime mood-congruent thoughts that are then used in impression formation

or may be used in a heuristic fashion to aid people in estimating how they feel about a

person (McFarland et. al., 2003). So, mood may also influence our processing style in

regards to how a person might utilize a systematic or heuristic approach (McFarland et.

al., 2003). For example, when in a negative mood a consumer might systematically

process the information more thoroughly and deliberately because a negative mood

signals that something may be wrong or potentially threatening. So, a person will think

more carefully and critically to see what is wrong in order to avoid mistakes or negative

outcomes. On the other hand, when people are in a positive mood they use heuristic

7

shortcuts and stereotypes because there is no need to expend energy since they feel good,

making them think that things are fine.

While it is clear that affective states influence an individual’s evaluations, there

are still different potential influences that need to be explored. One promising avenue

involves a motivational approach to exploring mood influences rather than a purely

information processing one (e.g., mood-congruency). Affective states serve as salient

forms of information that may signal the presence of threats or opportunities in the

environment (Maner & Gerend, 2007). Emotions promote motivational tendencies aimed

at the avoidance of threat or engagement of opportunity (Maner & Gerend, 2007). For

example, the emotion a person is feeling at a given time has a strong effect on whether

he/she decides to conform or not (Griskevicius, et. al., in press). Self-presentation

strategies can be effective and dramatically altered by fear and romantic desire, which are

two primitive concepts. Fear leads people to conform, while romance activates a desire

to be unique (Griskevicius, et. al., in press). These types of findings suggest that certain

psychological mindsets (fear/sexual attraction) can trigger corresponding needs (need for

affiliation/distinctiveness) and resultant tendencies (conformity/uniqueness) that are

exhibited to satisfy these heightened needs. The purpose of the current study, which will

be discussed later, is to consider how threat influences consumer attitudes toward a

product. Furthermore, how responses to threat and the presentation of messages impact

consumer attitudes.

Threat/Uncertainty

Threat is a negative consequence that is proposed to elicit a response and is also

an indication or warning of probable trouble (Maheswaran & Agrawal, 2004). Threat

8

produces uncertainty which creates a psychological state of nervousness and anxiety.

Therefore, threat is considered to be an obstacle or challenge for a person. Threat is

experienced on an individual level. There are different types of threat a person may

experience in their daily life, such as a highly threatening situation that may produce

immediate anxiety (e.g., close call accident during rush hour traffic) or a low threat

situation in which a person may not directly experience the consequences of the situation.

For example, people may fear death during the end of their lifecycle or may experience

threat throughout different stages of their life. A person may experience uncertainty by

being rejected by a romantic partner or discovering that a family member has cancer. On

the other hand, as a society people may experience threat when the country is at a state of

war, or from watching current news events. For these reasons, threat is important to

study because people experience it and have a desire to escape it.

A common threat that most people have experienced is thinking about death or

mourning from a death. In particular, the thought of one’s own death is frightening

because it is ultimately inevitable and people are bound to think about dying. People

think about the finality of their life which causes them to feel afraid and apprehensive, so

people look for answers. One way this can be illustrated is through religion. For

example, a person’s religion helps to provide answers for uncertainty that surrounds

thoughts of death. Therefore, people try to defuse the threat of death by seeking

symbolic immortality by adopting a cultural worldview that is shared by others (Gailliot,

Schmeichel & Maner, 2007). Embracing a popular cultural worldview reduces

uncertainty by providing social validation from others, making one feel more certain. So,

9

the more others confirm what a person believes, he/she will feel less uncertain. Thus,

how a person feels can effect how they think about a particular topic.

Feelings might relate to concepts like threat, which is why this topic has been

considered. When something is felt (threat), it heightens a need (safety via affiliation),

and then response (affiliation via conformity or socially desirable responses that make

one “fit in”). In consumer research threat has been studied through a framework of terror

management theory. Terror Management Theory (TMT) explainsthe implicit emotional

reactions of people when confronted with the psychological terror of knowing they will

eventually die. TMT states that when people are confronted with thoughts of their own

mortality, they experience X (e.g. a particular feeling). Since this is an aversive

experience and feels negative, people are motivated to do Y (e.g. think about the present).

This theory helps to explain how people deal with and alleviate terror that they

experience.

Threat and mortality relates to terror management theory, which states that when

people are made aware of their mortality, they feel the need to uphold a cultural

worldview that provides them with an anxiety buffer (Moskalenko, McCauley & Rozin,

2006). Mortality salience has been found to increase desires for social acceptance

(Gailliot, Stillman, Schmeichel, Maner & Plant, 2008). One way people can defuse the

psychological threat of death is to adhere to social norms and values to cope with the

awareness of death (Gailliot et. al., 2008). Fear may lead people to reprioritize their

goals and thus, seek out others who can help reduce their distress and feeling of

vulnerability (Li, Halterman, Cason, Knight & Maner, 2007).

10

Researchers have used TMT as a way to understand how the awareness of death

affects materialism, conspicuous consumption, and consumer decisions. People may feel

that in order to protect themselves from the negative thoughts and feelings that arise from

thinking about death they should focus on their present life. Therefore, materialism and

death may be connected on a subconscious level because people may engage in material

spending to direct and focus their thoughts and attention on aspects of their present life,

ultimately serving to distract themselves from thoughts of mortality (Rindfleisch &

Burroughs, 2004). Past research has also shown that there is evidence that a link between

death anxiety and materialism exists (Rindfleisch & Burroughs, 2004). One application

of TMT illustrates the possibility of materialism as a pathway to securing existential

meaning (Arndt, Solomon, Kasser & Sheldon, 2004). Furthermore, its application was

used to explain how suggestions of mortality increase materialism as a way to enhance

self-esteem and affect consumer decisions that support one’s cultural worldview (Arndt

et. al., 2004). Furthermore, on a subconscious level people may think of their

reproductive worth and want their genes to pass on. Thus, people want to make

themselves as attractive as possible which can be improved in a materialistic sense,

thereby making their physical appearance more attractive to increase reproduction

opportunities.

In a similar vein to TMT, the current study will look at the influence of threat on

consumer spending. When people feel threat they want to escape it and people are

sensitive to cues in order to escape threat. A message presented in an advertisement can

influence a way a consumer feels about a product (e.g. sad, happy, excited, uninterested,

turned-off, etc.). This study looks at other ways an ad and message interacts with threat.

11

For example, the emotion of fear motivates a desire to protect oneself from harm. One

purpose for studying threat is reflected by consumer behavior, which was discussed in the

previous section. In terms of consumer research, there is a lot of potential future

direction in considering threat or uncertainty. Threat or the thought that something bad

could happen may increase consumption of goods or products by providing something to

decrease the thought of uncertainty. Affiliation decreases anxiety and the sense of

threat/uncertainty.

In addition to the tendency to affiliate with others to alleviate uncertainty, a

person experiences further motivation when experiencing threat. For example, empirical

evidence has shown that participants seek to interact with those who are experienced so

they may learn to cope with an impending threat or to gain insight into their own situation

(Li et. al., 2007). Another common pattern is that people seek emotional similarity from

those undergoing a similar threatening situation. Seeking emotional similarity helps a

person by providing information about a particular situation. In a threatening situation,

we might not know how we are “supposed” to feel or react. Therefore we look to others,

and then use their responses/reactions as information to inform us. So we use their

responses as cues, and “copy” and “conform” because we feel unsure about our own

judgment of how to act. By looking to others and conforming, uncertainty about how to

behave is reduced. For example, those in a doctor’s office prefer to wait with others who

are experiencing the same situation or emotional state over waiting by themselves.

Another way to illustrate this point is to consider that people prefer to watch scary

movies with others so that they can reduce their anxiety of being afraid. Wisman and

Koole (2003) examined the unconscious desire of people to avoid being isolated by

12

others and the correlation to seating positions. They found that mortality salience led

participants to sit in a group of clustered chairs rather than a single chair. Several reasons

have been attributed to why people affiliate under threat and what function affiliation

serves. These are just some examples. There are other reasons too. Nevertheless, it is

apparent that a typical response to threat or danger is affiliation, which is seeking the

proximity of familiar people even if it involves remaining in a threatening situation.

Affiliation

As humans, we feel pleasure or positive affect from social contact. Previous

research has shown that there is evidence of a basic desire to form social attachments and

that forming these attachments generally produces positive emotion (Baumeister &

Leary, 1995). Real, imagined, or potential threats to social bonds generate a variety of

unpleasant emotional states (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Human beings are driven

toward establishing belongingness. The need to belong is the desire for interpersonal

attachments that is a fundamental human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). An

evolutionary basis states that this desire has survival and reproductive benefits

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Attachment behavior frequently takes place over escape,

and there is an evolutionary-adaptive function to seek protection from natural predators

(Mawson, 2005). This can help to explain that when a disaster occurs residents tend to

remain in the area, and when they do evacuate they do so in a group (Mawson, 2005).

The need to belong has important consequences for social functioning. Cues in

the environment signal both potential belonging and potential rejection, which can assist

an individual in navigating the environment in a way that will produce greater social

inclusion (Pickett, Gardner & Knowles, 2004). Group membership drives basic aspects

13

of psychology, such as feelings, thoughts, judgments, and behaviors. Groups are so

powerful that inclusion in them changes the emotional experiences of their members,

which influences cognitive processing and judgmental tendencies (Rydell et. al., 2008).

Research has shown that mere activation of group membership produces convergence of

emotional experience, without the explicit presence of a sudden event or object (Rydell

et. al., 2008). Groups are a principal component of affiliation because people have a need

to feel a sense of involvement and belonging within a social group.

Affiliation involves seeking the proximity of familiar persons and places. People

who are high in affiliation spend more of their time interacting with others than do people

with low affiliative motivation (Smith, Atkinson, McClelland, & Veroff, 1992). People

high in affiliation are more likely to be found interacting with someone or if alone, to

report wishing that they were with someone (Smith et. al., 1992). Therefore, people’s

scores on affiliation may primarily reflect their level of fear of rejection (Smith et. al.,

1992). The response to affiliate entails escaping from a certain situation and moving

toward a similarly perceived situation even though it may not be objectively safe

(Mawson, 2005). Thus, in order to reduce or escape threat, people have an increased

tendency to affiliate because uncertainty motivates affiliation with similarly threatened

others. Also emotional comparison needs are greater under high threat, rather than low

threat, and are met specifically by affiliation with someone facing a similar high threat

situation (Gump & Kulik, 1997). As an example, after the September 11th attacks,

Americans increased their identification with their country. This stressful situation

caused a greater need for affiliation because it allowed individuals to respond to the same

14

stressor by coming together to find security in one another. It is clear that fear and

affiliation can be linked to one another.

Fear and affiliation research stem from Leon Festinger’s social comparison

theory. Festinger argued that people need to have appraisals of their opinions and

abilities and therefore, evaluate their opinions and abilities in comparison to other people.

A similarity hypothesis indicates that people prefer to compare themselves with others

who are similar in ability or those with similar opinions because it is believed that they

will provide a more accurate judgment of their relative standing (Kulik, Mahler &

Earnest, 1994). Thus, people compare themselves to others in an attempt to determine

whether their emotional reactions under stressful circumstances are normal or not

(Lodewijkx, Van Zomeren & Syroit, 2005). Under social comparison, people interact

with similar versus dissimilar others because it provides useful information for assessing

one’s own feelings or abilities, thereby reducing uncertainty (Mehrabian & Ksionzky,

1974). The opportunity for self-enhancement through comparisons with others increases

affiliation. This theory was tested by Rabbie (1963), who conducted a study in which

participants under a high uncertainty condition (uncertain if they would receive an

electrical shock) desired to affiliate more than those who were certain that they would

receive an electrical shock.

One interesting comparison that has been made is between males and females

under threat. Taylor et al. (2000) found that gender differences exist in affiliation under

threat. It was shown that males display a fight-or-flight response to threat, in contrast to

females who show a tend-and-befriend response. Tending involves nurturant activities

designed to protect the self and offspring that promote safety and reduce distress, and

15

befriending is the creation and maintenance of social networks that may aid in this

process (Taylor, Klien, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung, & Updegraff, 2000). A female

response to threat includes nurturing and soothing but is also related to the formation and

maintenance of social bonds and alliances with other females. Hence, in threat-arousing

conditions females seek and depend on affiliation and social support more than males

(Taylor et. al., 2000). Regardless of gender differences, the tendency to seek the

proximity of others is extremely powerful.

Empirical research has shown that the mere presence of another person is

beneficial. Schnall, Harber, Stefanucci, & Proffitt (2008) conducted a study in which

participants accompanied by a friend, compared to those participants that were alone,

estimated a hill to be less steep. Furthermore, participants in this study who simply

thought of a supportive friend during an imaginary task saw a hill as less steep, than

participants who thought of a disliked or neutral person. This example suggests that

social support, a psychological resource, moderates visual perception of the physical

world. This provides an explanation as to why the physical world appeared less

challenging to these participants, and why a hill in particular seemed less steep. In

addition to this study, past research has shown that even when participants could not

directly interact or communicate with other participants, an affiliation tendency occurred

in which the anticipation that a participant would face a threatening situation was

sufficient to induce a strong need for affiliation (Lodewijkx et. al., 2005). Affiliation

activates a person’s social identity because they are identifying with other people.

Intergroup relations consist of groups that people feel they belong to, which also

help to define and evaluate who they are. Thus, they reveal their collective self-concept

16

and social identity. Being a member of a group is advantageous for an individual.

Groups may be formed because of a motivation for self-enhancement or uncertainty

reduction. As certainty develops, people then consider their status (Reid & Hogg, 2005).

Subsequently, group identification is at least partly directed toward enhancing one’s

social status and self-esteem. One way in particular that a person might do this is through

association with a successful group. A threat to self-esteem can lead an individual to

increase identification with a group that offers high status and support (Moskalenko et.

al., 2006). The motivation to seek out groups with high status is one reason why groups

are considered to be desirable. People want acceptance by a group, which can account

for why groups are attractive. Research has also revealed that stronger affiliation

tendencies are associated with stronger group attraction (Lodewijkx et. al., 2005). The

urge to be accepted by a group stems from the concept of social comparison.

The purpose of the study is to further examine the known relationship between

threat and affiliation tendencies. Theorists suggest that, as social animals, humans have

evolved to depend on one another to overcome challenges and threats. Under threat and

uncertainty, humans also turn to one another as sources of information to shape their

subjective reality (e.g., pluralistic ignorance; social tuning processes). This belief in

“strength in numbers” is not unique to humans, but can be evidenced across a range of

social species (e.g., herd mentality). Historically, psychologists have examined affiliative

behaviors under threat, and have explored ways that humans group, ingratiate, and

conform under these conditions. Essentially, under threat, there is a strong tendency to

embrace others in efforts to reduce threat and uncertainty. The current study takes a novel

approach to this century-old topic, and aims to explore more subtle, yet still

17

social/affiliative, responses to potentially threatening situations. To examine the

boundaries of the threat-affiliation relationship, we have designed a study to test if people

are more receptive to affiliative/inclusive “words” under threat. Evaluations can be

shaped by social information and social cues.

The Meaning of a Message

Consumer evaluations of products can be impacted in several ways (e.g.

consciously or nonconsciously). At a nonconscious level, subtle social cues can affect

brand choices. For example, researchers demonstrated that when participants viewed

pictures of a brand accompanied by the presence of others, participants were more likely

to choose that brand over other brands even if they were unaware that they had seen the

brand logo (Ferraro, Bettman, & Chartrand, in press). Researchers also showed that

repeated exposure of a brand increased the likelihood that an observer will select that

brand (Ferraro et. al., in press). There are several components of an advertisement that

influence product evaluation and the willingness to purchase a product.

Communication and more specifically, words, presented in an advertisement

provide one example of influential factors. Even subtle effects such as framing of a

message can alter mindsets and behavior in important ways. Message framing impacts

consumers in many significant ways. For example, previous research has shown that

tailored messages are perceived more positively than untailored messages (Updegraff,

Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007). There are several studies that explore message

framing in the consumer realm. For example, one study examines health messages and

the congruency effect. In this study, participants’ motivational orientation was measured

and then they viewed either a gain-framed or a loss-framed message on dental flossing.

18

Results indicated that information framed to be congruent with motivational orientations

lead people to form intentions to perform the health behavior (Sherman, Mann, &

Updegraff, 2006).

It has been established that how a person feels may influence how he or she thinks

(Chang, 2002). Individuals in different affective states process information in different

modes. One way that consumer behavior is influenced is by threatening consequences

included in fear-appeal communications, which make a message more persuasive

(Shehryar & Hunt, 2005). Several psychological constructs can have different

implications for how a person processes information. Word usage may be

psychologically meaningful, whether it is processed nonconsciously or not. This is what

is being tested in this study. For example, people may not be consciously aware of

pronouns, but can be sensitive to their representations and meaning. This study is

examining whether word usage is impactful or not. If so, then this is the important

contribution of the study’s results. People will then know that word usage, and in

particular, usage of pronouns which imply inclusion, impact people’s evaluations.

Furthermore, results may show that this is particularly the case under threat.

The interpretation of pronouns is mediated by a variety of social and personal

factors producing a range of possible uses and interpretations (Wilson, 1990). We use

pronouns to define ourselves in relation to others, and there is implied inclusion of

pronouns. Furthermore, there is implicit affiliation in some messages. One way

affiliation is implied, is from using reference groups. In one particular experiment

researchers primed participants to activate either “we-us” concepts or “they-them”

concepts, then asked participants to circle pronouns in a story text. Results revealed that

19

the pronouns “we” and “us” carry positive emotional significance, and primes social

representations of the self that are more inclusive than that of the personal self-concept

(Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Therefore, collective self-identifications were activated in

the we-prime condition. Thus, different levels of inclusiveness conceptually define

distinct construals of the self. This example illustrates that certain pronouns can be

associated with inclusion.

To further demonstrate this idea, the tendency to “bask in reflected glory” (BIRG)

is relevant. By publicly announcing one’s association with successful others is the

tendency to BIRG. Cialdini et al. (1976) showed that university students have a greater

tendency to wear school-identifying apparel after their school’s football team had been

victorious rather than nonvictorious. It was also demonstrated that students used the

pronoun “we” more when describing a victory rather than nonvictory of their school’s

football team. Sports fans take pride in their team’s accomplishments and proclaim their

affiliation by wearing clothing that represents their team, having bumper stickers on their

car, and displaying banners or flags in their yard. Fans show this tendency in order to

claim for themselves part of the team’s glory. This may explain why chants are often

phrased as “We’re number one” and never “They’re number one”. Therefore, pronouns

have psychological meaning and connection to a group of people. When a fan says, “We

won”, it denotes affiliation as opposed to saying “They won” when their team loses.

Another good example of how people consider the abstract usage and meaning of

particular pronouns can be observed from the recent presidential election on November

4th 2008. In some states people waited in long lines to vote. One CNN reporter, Madison

Park, said, “There was a light-hearted crowd despite weather conditions, and no one was

20

complaining. There’s a lot of collective energy that goes on.” (As reported on CNN.com

on 11-16-2008 by Madison Park). Robert Cialdini, a psychology professor at Arizona

State University said that a long line to vote creates the sense of “we” and not “me”. He

also said, “inside the boundaries of ‘we’, people treat each other well” (As reported on

CNN.com on 11-16-2008 by Madison Park). Another psychology professor, Shawn

Rosenberg from the University of California said that voting “symbolizes their

commitment to a larger role” (As reported on CNN.com on 11-16-2008 by Madison

park). Barack Obama’s pre-presidential rhetoric and its connection to his political

success is beneficial to examine.

Candidates for public office choose certain strategies in order to achieve certain

ends. Certain imperatives may include the need to identify themselves with symbols of

national identity to be considered patriotic, to unite diverse groups, and to prove their

ability for the job in question (Stuckey, 1989). Every candidate for public office

articulates a particular vision of America through specific rhetorical appeals to our

history, our national symbols, and our current national self-identification (Stuckey, 1989).

The use of pronouns that have suggested meaning of inclusion were used by Senator

Obama in his “A more perfect union” speech. For example, Barack Obama said, “…we

cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together-unless we perfect

our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but hold common

hopes…” (from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on March

18th 2008/as transcribed from politico.com). In Obama’s president-elect speech in Grant

Park, he said, “…that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and

where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we still

21

respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the people: Yes We Can.”

(from Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois on November 4th 2008 (as transcribed from

abcnews.go.com). By examining these speeches, it is obvious that “we, us and our”

concepts were used to activate collective self-identities. Using such pronouns makes

people feel included as Americans and a common identity is activated which produces

positive thoughts and feelings.

Affiliation increases in situations where positive reinforcement increases or

negative reinforcement decreases. Affiliation is desired more with targets that are more

reinforcing and are more attractive when they can help reduce fear or uncertainty

(Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1974). Positive social reinforcers are examples of people who

express positive attitude communication. Positive affiliators communicate more positive

attitudes. This can be demonstrated by using pronouns in which “I” indicates greater

separation of the target from the self and implies a less positive attitude than “we” usage

(Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1974). Individuals who have a general disposition to view

interpersonal relationships as being more positively reinforcing would, on average,

exhibit a greater degree of affiliation with any target (Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1974).

Research has found that people respond differently when social or personal

aspects of their identity are evoked (Donald & Dube, 1986). The personal self is at the

individual level motivated by self-interest. These different self-construals can be

activated at different times or in different contexts. Individuals have a desire to define

themselves with larger collectives and are better able to self-evaluate as a result of having

social identities. A collective social identity is a common identity in which the

perception of the self as a unique person is washed out and the perception of the self

22

becomes an exemplar of some social category (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Even though

one’s self-concept is not being activated in this study, this premise is relevant to the

conceptual framework of the study and its predicted effects. By raising the notion of a

collective self-concept, it will help to understand the predicted effects and hypotheses

that are conveyed within the idea of word usage and framing of an advertisement. When

the collective self is activated, it reflects norms and characteristics of reference groups

and salient features of the self-concept become those that are part of the in-group.

Therefore, in-groups provide the frame of reference for self-evaluation at the individual

level. Thus, in-group membership is a relevant source of social comparison.

By understanding the motivations of individuals versus groups, a potential

connection can be made between products and acceptance by groups. People identify and

associate themselves with certain groups to gain self-esteem. People are often motivated

by a desire to feel good about themselves. A person may believe that they will be

accepted by a group if they buy products similar to those that their desired group uses or

possesses. This can be illustrated by consumer wants among teenage high school

students. Imagine a popular product is associated with a certain group of students and a

person desires to be part of that group. A person might be more inclined to purchase that

product and think that their likelihood of being seen as an in-group member will increase.

Communication is important in order to conceptualize the process by which

people navigate and assign meaning. Exchanging of understanding consists of

transmitting information from one person to another. In a psychological view,

communication is the act of sending a message to a receiver and the feelings and thoughts

of the receiver upon interpreting the message (Kotler & Armstrong, 2006). The

23

elaboration likelihood model (ELM) involves message processing as an aspect of

communication. Based on the elaboration likelihood model it has been determined that

tailored messages are more effective than untailored messages because they have a

greater relevance to the recipient, thereby increasing the chance that the recipient will

process the message centrally rather than peripherally (Updegraff et. al., 2007). This

theory can be used to understand how a variable has an impact on some evaluative or

nonevaluative judgment (Petty & Wegener, 1999). The ELM examines the processes

underlying changes in judgments of objects, the variables that induce these processes, and

the strength of the judgments resulting from these processes (Petty & Wegener, 1999).

Several variables impact a person’s attitude toward various objects, issues, and

people. A source, message, and contextual factors are examples of variables that can be

influential. For example, Cameron & DeJoy (2006) studied the composition of

communication and found that warning communication messages are meant to persuade

people to use protective or precautionary behaviors when encountering potentially

dangerous products or situations. There is more than just the content of a message that is

influential. We are aware that people seldom process information deeply, instead relying

on quick mental shortcuts to guide their behaviors. Several different theoretical models

provide implications for effective persuasion techniques. An example is a motivational

theory, which is a conformity-based shortcut of following the crowd. An arousal based

model suggests that arousal increases the influence of peripheral cues and decreases the

influence of central arguments (Pham, 1996). Therefore, consumers are more likely to

process less complex information as the amount of processing capacity decreases

(Sanbonmatsu & Kardes, 1988). An evolutionary approach suggests that different

24

emotions may lead people to be persuaded by certain heuristic cues and interpretive

persuasive appeals in different ways (Griskevicius, et. al., in press).

Psycholinguists and communication scholars have made much progress in

demonstrating the powerful nature of words, and have shown that the differential framing

of messages can result in the activation of different psychological states of mind. The

rationale for the current study follows similar principles and assumptions. More

specifically, the study will explore whether messages, in the form of product

advertisements, that use inclusive pronouns (e.g., we, our, us) lead products to be

perceived as more attractive/valuable under threat (compared to low threat). This is an

important area of study because if our hypotheses are supported, we will have identified a

theoretical framework (with empirical evidence) that can be used as a foundation for

strategically framing a wide range of persuasive communications (e.g., health-related

messages; political speeches; advertisements) so the audience is more receptive.

Given events that have unfolded over the last decade, we believe it is critical for

scientists to examine the psychological responses and tendencies that occur under threat.

According to the Homeland Security Agency’s security advisory system, the country has

been in a state of elevated risk for terrorist attacks since 2002. The country’s economy is

often characterized as being in a state of “crisis,” and is expected to continue to be so for

some time. Thus, studying the psychological impact of threat is a timely topic, as is

research on communicative strategies for increasing message receptiveness under states

of threat/uncertainty. While the current proposal is much inspired by President Obama’s

use of the slogan, “Yes We Can,” the theoretical framework of interest will be tested

within a framework of consumer behavior research. There are a number of advantages to

25

using product advertisements as our medium to test the predictions of our psychological

framework. Compared to having to read political speeches or health-related persuasive

communications, we believe participants who have to look over ads will be more engaged

and will maintain their interest and focus for a longer period of time. By using contrived

products ads as stimuli, we can also collect data on the continuous variable of monetary

value, which will be a novel and sensitive evaluation measure.

Rationale and Hypotheses

Previous research has shown that mood states influence a person’s judgments and

behavior. When a psychological threat is present, people want to escape the situation or

emotional state. Therefore, a typical response to threat is affiliation. Several reasons for

this motivational response have been explained. One way this has been achieved has

been observed by pronoun usage. The combination of these theories has resulted in the

formulation of my hypotheses. Therefore, I predict that the positive evaluation of a

product will increase when an advertisement for the product is presented and framed in a

collective sense, using particular pronouns rather than when it is presented with 3rd

person, and this pattern should be even more pronounced when participants are

experiencing threat.

Hypothesis 1: I predict that ad framing will have an impact on participants. More specifically, that participants in the inclusive pronoun condition will evaluate the product more positively compared to those in the 3rd person pronoun condition. Hypothesis 2: I predict that there will be an interaction effect between ad framing and threat. More specifically, that this predicted effect of inclusive pronouns on product attractiveness will be significantly stronger in the high threat condition.

Tolerance for ambiguity, attachment style, and affiliative tendency are three

individual difference measure questionnaires used as materials in this study. These

26

individual difference constructs are of interest to this study because they may moderate

potential effects and therefore are secondary hypotheses. Because threatening situations

involve uncertainty and ambiguity, those who can tolerate ambiguity may experience

lower levels of psychological threat than others. If this is the case, the high threat

manipulation may not be effective for those with a high tolerance for ambiguity.

Attachment styles can be construed as a measure of people’s tendencies to seek others

during times of distress (Hazen & Shaver, 1987). Those with an avoidant attachment

style prefer to be alone rather than with close others when they are distressed. Therefore,

it is possible avoidants in the high threat condition will not respond as hypothesized. And

lastly, affiliative tendency scores will be collected because it is plausible that the

hypothesized results will not emerge for those who score low on this measure. By

administering these scales, more detailed analyses can be conducted if needed or desired.

Furthermore, I believe that the need for affiliation will be higher for those who

feel more threatened. When an advertisement is framed by using pronouns such as “we”

and “our”, I think it will act as a cue in signaling that this is a way to be accepted by a

collective and cause him or her to have a more positive attitude toward a product. So, the

predicted effects may be due to what they represent, which is potential inclusion in some

group. When viewing the product advertisement, participants may see that “Our drivers

love it!”, then perhaps what goes through the consumer’s mind is “if this group loves it,

then if I love it, then they (or people like them) would accept me. Therefore, they seem

like a group and the product is associated with that group, which could led the consumer

to think that if he or she associates with the product then his or her affiliation needs will

be better met.

27

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Participants and Design

The study employs a 2 (threat: low vs. high) X 2 (ad reference frame: inclusive

pronouns vs. 3rd person; see Table 1) between-subjects design. Therefore, there were a

total of four conditions which are as follows: low threat/”RAH” pronoun (N = 37), low

threat/”we” pronoun (N = 35), high threat/”RAH” pronoun (N = 25), and high

threat/”we” pronoun (N = 48). Data from 145 participants (both male and female) from

Cleveland State University who were at least 18 years of age was collected. The majority

of the sample was female (69%) and White/Caucasian (68.28%). Since the majority of

these students were from the introductory psychology subject pool, they signed up to

participant in this study through the online Sona system. Course credit and automatic

entry into a raffle to win a $20.00 gas card was provided as an incentive for participation.

All participants were treated in accordance with the American Psychological Association

ethical guidelines.

28

Measures and Materials

The first individual difference measure presented was Budner’s (1962) tolerance

for ambiguity scale (see Appendix A). This included 16 items with a reported reliability

of 0.64, and in this study the α = .34. Participants rated each statement using a 7- point

Likert scale. The response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.

Some examples of statements are, “There is really no such thing as a problem that can’t

be solved” and “A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are

always clear”.

The attachment style (see Appendix B) of each participant was measured using a

conventional scale provided in Hazan and Shaver (1987). Participants were asked to

select one of the three items that best describes them. Attachment style is assigned by

examining which response was chosen. For example, someone with a secure attachment

style would select the following item from the list, “I find it relatively easy to get close to

others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t

often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me”.

Kuder and Richardson’s (1937) measure of affiliative tendency (see Appendix C)

was also used in this study. The internal reliability coefficient that was reported for this

measure was 0.80, and in this study the composite’s reliability was roughly the same (α =

.74). Participants responded to a series of statements using a 9-point Likert scale, with

anchors ranging from “very strong agreement” to “very strong disagreement”. Some of

these example statements are “When I’m not feeling well, I would rather be with others

than alone” and “I enjoy a good movie more than a big party”.

29

To manipulate threat level, participants were given fabricated information about

their alleged partner (see Appendixes D and E), the person supposedly assigned to be

their “teacher”. In the high threat condition, participants were provided with a profile of

a person who scores high on aggression measures. They were also shown the “teacher’s”

response to an open-ended question that asks the “teacher” to describe him/herself (e.g.,

likes and dislikes). In the high threat condition, the response implied the “teacher” is

easily frustrated (“One of my dislikes are slow drivers. I hate being stuck behind idiots.

It REALLY pisses me off when I honk my horn and they slow down. It’s like they’re

looking for fights and want to annoy me.”). In the low threat condition, aggression scores

were very low, and the open-ended response suggested the “teacher” is patient and

empathetic (“I dislike traffic, but I try not to let it get to me because I know there’s

nothing I can do about it. I don’t understand aggressive drivers and think people who

tailgate just make traffic situations worse. I guess everyone has their own way of dealing

with things. I prefer just listening to the radio.”).

Participants were asked to use their computer to complete a survey of affective

states (see Appendix F). This survey assessed their feelings and psychological state (e.g.,

perceived threat) and served as a manipulation check. This measure consists of a number

of words that describe different feelings and emotions and uses a 7-point Likert scale

ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. In this study the reliability was .81.

Examples of some of the words that are included are scared, nervous, afraid, and uneasy.

All participants viewed a product advertisement for an iPod (see Appendixes G

and H). They were told to view the ad carefully enough so they could provide their

impression of the product. The ad that participants viewed differed depending on the ad

30

frame condition. Participants in the inclusive pronoun condition were exposed to an ad

that includes pronouns such as “we” and “our”, accompanied with a picture of a cohesive

group of people endorsing the product in the advertisement. The use of pronouns such as

“we” and “our” are intended to promote a sense of inclusiveness and belonging, and this

assumption will be investigated in this study. For example, if a company uses the phrase

“our drivers are satisfied” (compared to “Ford drivers are satisfied”), it is suspected that

this framing will induce a sense of group membership and subtly help to address

affiliation needs. In the 3rd person frame condition, the ad references the name of the

“iPod manufacturer” instead of pronouns such as “we” and “our”, and the ad includes

separate pictures of individual people who are endorsing the product (the number of

individuals in this condition matches the number of people that are in the group in the

“inclusive pronoun” condition).

Participants responded to statements about the product and advertisement,

evaluating the iPod based on their attitude towards it. They also rated their willingness to

purchase the device. These questions are available in Appendix I for ease of

interpretation. Cronbach’s Alpha for this composite was .86. Participants rated each

statement using a 7- point Likert scale, ranging from ”strongly agree” to “strongly

disagree”. Some example statements are “I would want to use this iPod” and “I think this

iPod has an attractive design”.

Participants were also asked to respond to a few items for ad recognition purposes

(see Appendix J). Participants rated each statement based on a 7-point Likert scale, and

the response options range from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Some of the

statements include items such as, “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group

31

of people in it” and “When describing the iPod, the advertisement used (1) a lot of “we”

statements (such as, “We know you’re going to love it! Our customers certainly do!”) or

(2) a lot of “RAH” statements (such as, “RAH knows you’re going to love it! Customers

certainly do!”)”.

Lastly, demographic questions (see Appendix I) were asked for descriptive

purposes. Questions include the participant’s sex, age, race, academic year at Cleveland

State University, and major.

Procedure

This study was conducted in a psychology lab at the University, and sessions

lasted for approximately one half-hour. Participants reported to the lab, were provided

with an informed consent form, and were asked to sign it. Those who agreed to

participate were seated at an individual cubicle in front of a computer where their

responses were not visible to other participants. The study was conducted via computer,

using a software program called MediaLab. All materials were presented to participants

via computer, and responses were made and collected via computer. The majority of

instructions were also presented to participants on their computer screen, but an

experimenter was present to address any issues or answer any questions. Participants

were able to work and respond at their own pace.

Upon arrival, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental

conditions. After signed consent forms were collected and participants received a copy

of the consent form, all participants completed three individual difference measures.

These included (in the order that the participants filled out) a tolerance for ambiguity

32

measure, an attachment style measure, and a measure for affiliative tendency (see

Appendices A-C). These individual difference constructs are of interest to this study

because they may moderate potential effects, and by administering these scales more

detailed analyses can be conducted if needed or desired.

After the individual difference measures were completed, the threat manipulation

was then administered and participants were given their partner profiles (see Appendices

D and E). Participants were told that they were being given this information so they

know more about one another before interacting. They were told that they would also be

asked to fill out similar surveys prior to the learning exercise so that the “teacher” has access

to this information about the “learner” as well.

Participants in the high threat condition were instructed that they would engage in

a task for the study which concerns learning and punishment, while those in the low

threat condition were instructed that the study concerns learning and reinforcement (note:

italics in this section are used to indicate threat condition differences). Participants were

led to believe they would eventually be taking part in a learning exercise, and had been

“randomly” assigned the role of the “learner” who will be asked to complete a

memorization task. They were told another participant who was in another room was

randomly chosen to act as the “teacher”, and this participant would be responsible for

administering the punishment/reinforcement to the “learner” as/if mistakes are made. In

actuality, participants did not engage in the learning task, and were not paired with

another participant.

After participants were told their role and given a profile of their alleged partner

(see Appendices D and E), they were informed that the punishment would consist of

33

sound blasts. When/if the “learner” makes mistakes, the “teacher” will determine the

level and duration of sound blasts to administer to facilitate performance by the “learner”.

Participants were told that the sound blast could range from 1-150 decibels (dBs), with a

duration ranging from 1-4 seconds, depending on what the “teacher” decides. To provide

a basis of reference, participants were told normal conversation (3-5’) usually occurs at a

level of 60-70dBs, a loud rock concert registers at 115dBs, pain begins at 125dBs, and a

gun blast is typically 140dBs. Participants were also “ensured” that permanent hearing

loss and death of hearing tissue would not occur because those outcomes require

exposure to 180dBs of noise.

In addressing the concerns of the APA, we believe the use of deception in this

study is absolutely necessary to preserve the naturalness of the participants’ behavior and

would not cause more risk to the participant than everyday life events. In this study, the

use of deception increases the impact of the experimental environment; making the

experimental situation more realistic, in turn, increasing internal validity of a study

(Association, A. P., 2003). It is more ethical to deceive participants than to actually

expose them to a punishment of sound blasts.

Following the threat manipulation, participants completed the affective states

measure (see Appendix F), viewed the iPod advertisement (see Appendixes G and H),

evaluated the product (see Appendix I), completed an ad recognition measure (see

Appendix J), and answered demographic questions (see Appendix K).

After all questions were answered, participants were informed that due to a

computer malfunction that occurred with the “teacher’s computer”, the last task of the

34

study (learning exercise) had been canceled. Participants were told they would still

receive full credit for their participation, were then thanked and debriefed.

35

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

Two factors were manipulated in this study, threat level and use of pronoun in the

product advertisement. It is important to note the scale anchors since these might be

counter intuitive. For example, the anchors for this statement ranged from “strongly

agree” with an anchor of one to “strongly disagree” with an anchor of seven. This is a

notable detail to remember when understanding the results. To test participant’s

sensitivity to the use of different pronouns in the advertisement, a manipulation check

was performed. A Chi-Square test was conducted to determine whether those in the “we”

pronoun condition were more likely to respond more accurately than those in the “RAH”

pronoun condition to the item “When describing the iPod, (1) a lot of we statements were

used or (2) a lot of RAH statements were used”. The test was significant X2(1, N = 145)

= 29.14, p < .01, which suggests that those in the “we” pronoun condition were more

likely to respond more accurately than those in the “RAH” pronoun condition (see Table

2 and Table 3). Therefore, participants were sensitive to the manipulation check and it

was relatively successful. None of the subsequent analyses differed using a filter for

36

those who responded to this item correctly, so in all of the following analyses the full

sample was used.

Each advertisement was the same except that the use of pronouns and picture(s)

differed. In the “we” pronoun condition there was one picture of a cohesive group of

people, and in the “RAH” pronoun condition there were separate pictures of individual

profiles. The number of individuals in this condition matches the number of people that

are in the group picture in the “we” pronoun condition. A manipulation check is

necessary because the pictures differ in each pronoun condition. Therefore, to further test

participant’s sensitivity to pronoun use in the advertisement, a one-way ANOVA was

performed for the item “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group of people

in it.”. A significant effect for pronoun was found, F(1, 143) = 60.17, p < .01, such that

those in the “we” pronoun condition agreed more with the previous statement than those

in the “RAH” pronoun condition, Ms = 2.11 (SD = 1.40) vs. 4.18 (SD = 1.82),

respectively (see Table 4 and Table 5).

The other factor that was manipulated in this study was threat level. To check

whether this manipulation was successful or not, various affective and psychological

states relative to threat were tested (e.g. “upset”, “scared”, “alert”, “nervous”, “jittery”,

“afraid”, “anxious”, and “uneasy”). It was expected that those in the high threat

condition would rate themselves higher on the states associated with threat than those in

the low threat condition. An independent-samples t test analysis indicates that variances

for those in the high threat condition and those in the low threat condition did not differ

significantly from each other, except for one item (see Table 6). Results show that for the

item “uneasy” the means do differ significantly (p = .05), such that those in the high

37

threat condition felt more uneasy than those in the low threat condition (Ms = 4.82 (SD =

1.94) vs. 4.94 (SD = 1.68). None of these items were significant performing a one-way,

ANOVA’s (see Table 7). However, using a one-tailed standard, which is justifiable using

a priori predictions, only the item “alert” was significant F(1, 143) = 2.87, p = .05. The

main effect for threat (low, N = 72 vs. high, N = 73) shows that those in the high threat

condition felt more alert than those in the low threat condition Ms = 2.30 (SD = 1.33) vs.

2.67 (SDs = 1.27) which is an expected pattern (see Table 8 and Table 9). Thus, there is

some support that the threat level manipulation check was effective.

Primary Hypotheses

To review, one of the primary hypotheses predicted a main effect for ad framing

where participants in the inclusive pronoun condition would evaluate the product more

positively. The other primary hypothesis predicted an interaction between ad framing

and threat such that the predicted effect of inclusive pronouns on product attractiveness

was expected to be significantly stronger in the high threat condition. To test positive

evaluations of the product, comprehensive analyses were conducted using each product

evaluation item as a dependent variable. There were eight items used to determine if

there was a positive product evaluation, which are as follows: “I like this iPod.”, “I think

this iPod would be fun to own.”, “I would want to use this iPod.”, “I think this iPod is

priced reasonably compared to other brands.”, “I think this iPod seems durable.”, “I think

this iPod offers a good value for its price.”, “I think this iPod has an attractive design.”,

and “I think this iPod has a good variety of features.”.

When conducting one-way ANOVA’s with these dependent variables, there was

only one significant main effect for pronoun that is reported in the next paragraph (see

38

Table 10 for all non significant results). However, there were two items that were close

to significance which were “I would want to use this iPod” (p = .14) and “I think this

iPod would be fun to own” (p = .13). When examining the nature of these items, both

seemed to reflect the desire to own the iPod and therefore could be related. A correlation

was performed and these two items were positively correlated r = .47, p < .01 (see Table

11). Thus, because these items were related a composite was created representing

participant’s desire to own the iPod. To test the hypothesis that those in the “we”

pronoun condition felt more positive about the product, this composite was used as the

dependent variable in a one-way ANOVA with a one-tailed standard. A significant effect

for pronoun was found F(1, 143) = 3.12, p < .05 and those in the “we” pronoun

condition were more likely to agree that they felt more positively about the product

expressed by a stronger desire to own it than those in the “RAH” pronoun condition (Ms

= 3.19 (SD = 1.42) vs. 3.65 (SD = 1.66), respectively, see Table 12 and Table 13).

Therefore, there is some support for the first hypothesis.

Furthermore, a one-way ANOVA was performed on the only significant item “I

think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands.” And found a significant

effect for pronoun F(1, 143) = 4.43 , p < .05 (see Table 14 and Table 15). Those in the

“RAH” pronoun condition were more likely to agree with the statement that the iPod was

priced reasonably compared to other brands than those in the “we” pronoun condition

(Ms = 2.44 (SD = 1.44) vs. 2.96 (SD = 1.53), respectively). This effect was unexpected

and will be discussed later in the discussion section.

To test the second hypothesis, a 2 (low threat vs. high threat) X 2 (“RAH”

pronoun vs. “we” pronoun) ANOVA using the composite for positive product evaluations

39

expressed by the desire to own the iPod was performed. There was not a significant

interaction (p = .70) between ad framing and threat in which effect of inclusive pronouns

on product attractiveness was significantly stronger in the high threat condition. To be

thorough, all other positive evaluation items were used as the dependent variables in two-

way ANOVA’s and there were not any significant interactions (see Table 16 for all

nonsignificant results).

Exploratory Analyses

In addition to the primary hypotheses, a lot of additional analyses could be

performed. Some of these analyses will be discussed in this section. One analysis

conducted was a 2 (low threat vs. high threat) X 2 (“RAH” pronoun vs. “we” pronoun)

ANOVA using the item “I would buy this iPod” as the dependent variable. This item can

be considered the participant’s intent to purchase the product rather than an evaluation of

the product. Results show a main effect for threat F(1, 141) = 3.88, p = .05 (see Table 17

and Table 18). Those in the high threat condition agreed more with the previous

statement more than those in the low threat condition (Ms = 2.55 (SE = .19) vs. 3.07 (SE

= .18), respectively).

Another exploratory analysis examined the participant’s perceptions of the

advertisement. A two-way ANOVA with the dependent variable “This advertisement

was difficult to read” was performed and was nonsignificant (p = .07). However, because

of the expected pattern of results, when using a one-tailed test standard results showed a

significant main effect for threat F(1, 141) = 3.34 , p < .05 (see Table 19 and Table 20).

As predicted, those in the low threat condition agreed more with the previous statement

than those in the high threat condition (Ms = 5.22 (SE = .19) vs. 5.72 (SE = .20),

40

respectively). Other ad recognition items were analyzed as the dependent variable (e.g.

“This advertisement sounded professional”, “This advertisement reported the gigabyte

memory and screen size”, “The iPod model was a touch screen”, “The make of the iPod

was RAH”, “The iPod came in a variety of colors”, and “This iPod offered a variety of

features”) and there was only one significant finding (see Table 21). There was a

significant main effect for pronoun when a two-way ANOVA with the dependent

variable “The make of the iPod was RAH” was performed F(1, 141) = 3.89 , p = .05 (see

Table 22 and Table 23). Those in the “RAH” pronoun condition were more likely to

agree with this statement than those in the “we” pronoun condition (Ms = 1.18 (SE = .11)

vs. 1.47 (SE = .10), respectively). When performing an analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) with the product evaluation items as the dependent variables with the ad

recognition composite as the covariate, one significant finding emerged (see Table 24).

A significant main effect for pronoun was found for the item “I think this iPod is priced

reasonably compared to other brands” F(1, 140) = 5.78 , p < .05. Thus, showing that

factors are still significantly related to the dependent variable after the variation due to

the covariates has been removed.

Individual difference measures were used as questionnaires in this study and were

utilized as covariates in ANOVA’s with the product evaluation items as the dependent

variables (e.g. tolerance for ambiguity, attachment style and affiliative tendency).

Tolerance for ambiguity was the first individual difference measure in this study. A 2

(threat: high vs. low) X 2 (pronoun: we vs. RAH) ANCOVA was performed on the item

“I would buy this iPod.” Along with a tolerance for ambiguity composite as a covariate.

A significant main effect for threat was found F(1, 140) = 4.26, p < .05 (see Table 25 and

41

Table 26). When performing 2 (threat: high vs. low) X 2 (pronoun: we vs. RAH)

ANCOVA’s with the tolerance for ambiguity composite as the covariate and the product

evaluation items as the dependent variables, one significant finding emerged (see Table

27). The item “I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands” revealed

a main effect for pronoun F(1, 140) = 4.96, p < .05.

When considering attachment style, a one-way ANOVA was performed with the

composite as the dependent variable and threat as the independent variable (see Table 28

and Table 29). A significant main effect for threat was not found (p = .19). Therefore,

there was not a difference in attachment styles across the condition.

Lastly, 2 (threat: high vs. low) X 2 (pronoun: we vs. RAH) ANCOVA’s with the

affiliative tendency composite as the covariate and the product evaluation items as the

dependent variables were performed (see Table 30). “I think this iPod is priced

reasonably compared to other brands” was the only significant result, with a main effect

for pronoun F(1, 140) = 4.85, p < .05.

The feelings and psychological states of the participants also provided an

opportunity for exploratory analysis. A correlation matrix revealed significant findings at

the .05 level (2-tailed) for some product evaluation items and some affective states (see

Table 31). These results, among the others, offer interesting discussion in the next

section. A series of 2 (threat: high vs. low) X 2 (pronoun: we vs. RAH) ANCOVA’s with

the affective states composite as the covariate and the product evaluation items as the

dependent variables were performed and there was one significant finding (see Table 32).

The item “I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands” was the only

significant result, with a main effect for pronoun F(1, 140) = 4.95, p < .05.

42

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

There were two similar advertisements used in this study. Depending on the

random condition each participant was placed in, determined which ad that they viewed.

The advertisements only differed on two factors: the use of pronouns and picture(s). The

way in which the ad was framed was either in inclusive pronoun language using pronouns

such as “we” and “our” or was framed in third person pronouns using the iPod

manufacturer name “RAH”. In the “we” pronoun condition there was one picture of a

cohesive group of people, and in the “RAH” pronoun condition there were separate

pictures of individual profiles. The number of individuals in this condition matches the

number of people that are in the group picture in the “we” pronoun condition. Why

would these differences matter? Perhaps a sense of affiliation leads to positive

evaluations of the iPod. We are social animals by nature, which is a broad lesson that is

being applied to the domain of consumer behavior in this study.

In this study there was some support for the primary hypotheses. To test the

hypothesis that those in the “we” pronoun condition felt more positive about the product,

a desire to own the iPod composite was used when performing one-way ANOVA.

43

Results showed that those in the “we” pronoun condition were more likely to agree that

they felt more positively about the product expressed by a stronger desire to own it than

those in the “RAH” pronoun condition. Thus, there was a main effect for ad framing

where participants in the inclusive pronoun condition evaluated the product more

positively.

Results also showed that participants in the “we” pronoun condition were

sensitive to the inclusive pronoun language and correctly reported that these inclusive

pronouns were used in the advertisement. Hence, these findings have implications for

marketers in that subtle differences in pronoun usage in an advertisement have an effect

on consumers. Several studies mentioned earlier support this notion. Past research

upholds this theory that framing messages impacts consumers. Brewer and Gardner

(1996) demonstrated this by using reference groups to prime participants in order to

activate either “we-us” concepts or “they-them” concepts and collective self-

identifications were successfully activated in the we-prime condition. Thus, different

levels of inclusiveness conceptually define distinct construals of the self. This example

illustrates that certain pronouns are perceived differently and carry distinctive meaning.

Furthermore, participants in the “we” pronoun condition were more likely to see a picture

of a close knit group of people in the advertisement. This finding also suggests that

participants in this condition are not only sensitive to inclusive pronoun language, but

may also be more likely to see a cohesive group of people rather than individuals because

they were primed with inclusive pronouns in the text of the advertisement.

An additional interesting finding emerged when examining a product evaluation

item. For example, why were those in the “RAH” pronoun condition more likely to think

44

that the iPod was priced reasonably compared to other brands than those in the “we”

pronoun condition? This particular pattern of results was counter to what was expected.

It could be assumed that when viewing the advertisement, participants could be placing

more or less weight on the picture(s) depending on whether or not they view the people

as a cohesive group or as individuals. Furthermore, if participants in the “we” pronoun

condition are viewing the picture with a group of people this could explain why there was

a main effect for pronoun. Participants might be suspicion in their thinking. If this is the

case, it could be a result of thinking that the iPod is more expensive because it is popular

product due to the picture of a group of people that endorse it rather than individuals.

Also, participants could be considering race and SES in relation to the physical

appearance of the people in the picture(s). For example, in the “RAH” condition people

might be stereotyping by thinking that since there are people of different race, the iPod

may be more affordable since people with a average or low SES are represented in the

pictures.

Exploratory analyses produced interesting findings and patterns. When

considering whether or not a participant reported that they would purchase the product,

results showed that those in the high threat condition were more likely to agree that they

would buy the iPod than those in the low threat condition. One potential explanation for

this finding could be related to threat and materialism. As stated earlier, threat may

increase consumption of goods or products by providing something to decrease the

thought of uncertainty. So, it is possible that when feeling threatened, purchasing a

product may act as an anxiety buffer for thoughts of uncertainty.

45

When examining participant’s perceptions of the advertisement, it was reported

that those in the low threat condition agreed more with the statement “This advertisement

was difficult to read” than those in the high threat condition. This finding is unexpected

and counter-intuitive. One possible explanation for the finding may be related to more

feelings of threat experienced by those in the high threat condition. These participants

might be more consciously aware of what they are looking at or may be feeling more

alert and therefore are more likely to pay attention to what is in the ad, thus finding it

easier to read because they are looking at it more closely. Those in the “RAH” pronoun

condition were more likely to agree with the statement “The make of the iPod was RAH”

than those in the “we” pronoun condition. This could be a result of the pronoun

condition that the participant was in. Hence, participants in the “RAH” pronoun

condition could be agreeing more with the previous statement because they are simply

seeing this third person pronoun word repeated in the advertisement more than those in

the “we” pronoun condition.

It is important to consider individual difference measures that may impact the

consumer’s purchasing process. Both tolerance for ambiguity and affiliative tendency

showed that the pronoun condition is still significantly related to the item “I think this

iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands” after the variation due to the

covariates has been removed. Furthermore, this finding shows that the degree to which a

consumer is experiencing a particular feeling, in this case threat, in conjunction with their

tolerance level for ambiguity which may influence his/her buying behavior.

Determining whether or not affective states influence a participant’s evaluation of

the product and intent to purchase it were examined. Why is it that participants that were

46

exposed to the low threat and “we” pronoun condition felt anxious? Also, why did

participants in the high threat and “RAH” pronoun condition feel anxious? A correlation

matrix showed that the more upset the participant was the more they liked the iPod, and

as the participant’s level of nervousness increased they were less likely to think that the

iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands and were less likely to report that

they would buy the iPod. Thus, patterns suggest that specific types of feelings matter and

are different. This was an anticipatory correlation because these items were lower level

intensity items compared to the other items that did not reveal significant effects.

When considering the distinction between the two types of feelings in this study,

feeling upset might relate to evaluations of the product while feelings of nervousness

might relate to intention. These findings support theories behind previous work such as

TMT, which examines the implicit emotional reactions of people when confronted with

the psychological terror of knowing they will eventually die. Therefore, feeling upset

may relate to concepts like threat and uncertainty. If nervousness relates to the purchase

decision and buying intentions, inducing nervousness may be beneficial from a

marketer’s perspective. One implication of threat could be that it makes people want to

buy more. Results in this study showed that those in the high threat condition felt more

alert than those in the low threat condition. For example, stores could potentially benefit

from using scarcity strategies. By communicating a “while supplies last” theme in sales,

this could activate feelings of threat among consumers. Hence, this could possibly

increase sales by getting consumers in the store to alleviate feelings of threat that the

product will no longer be available at the sale price if they do not get their quickly.

47

To provide additional support for these findings and implications, it was suggested that

those in the high threat condition felt more alert than those in the low threat condition.

This finding aligns the assumption that participants in the high threat condition should

feel more threatened and experience stronger feelings associated with uncertainty.

48

CHAPTER V

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Some limitations to this research may be a result of the visual imagery of the

pronoun condition. For example, one component of each advertisement was the picture.

In this study, there were only two advertisements; the “we” pronoun condition with a

cohesive group picture and the “RAH” advertisement with individual profiles of

consumers. This could be considered a major hypothesis in future studies that consider

print advertisements as the medium. Having a variety of different pictures of product

endorsers in the ads will allow the researcher to compare differences due to visual

representations of the end users of the product. Would a cohesive group of people

portrayed in the ad have the same impact on participants? Some people may react

differently to the picture. For example, they may react negatively because they could be

non-conformists that are independents which could lead to less positive evaluations of the

product. Therefore, participant’s motives could also be beneficial to assess, because how

they react to the picture that is shown could depend on their motives. In addition to this

concept, another limitation to this study was that the people depicted in the ads were

strangers. This could have implications for the affiliative tendencies. Past research has

49

shown that people under threat are more likely to affiliate with similar others. So, future

research could use pictures of similar social groups in the ads. For example, if the

majority of the sample will be college students from a particular university, then the

pictures of people represented in the ad can be students from that campus. Thus,

enabling participants to be able to identify with a similar social group could increase

affiliative tendencies especially in the ‘we” pronoun condition.

Other limitations that may effect generalizability involves the threat manipulation

of the study. One limitation is that the threat manipulation might not have been as

effective or strong because the task that the participants were told they would be

participating in was anticipated and not actual. Therefore, the threat that was induced

was only projected. Future research should make participants experience an actual threat

in the present. Thus, the task that would produce feelings of threat would be more certain

and likely to occur at that time. In addition to this weakness, there was only one type of

threat manipulated, which was aversion. Therefore, this study only considered negative

consequences of receiving sound blasts that a participant might experience. One

suggestion for future research is to have another type of threat manipulated, such as threat

to a person’s ego. Having more than one type of threat manipulation will allow the

researcher to compare conditions across threat types and allow the opportunity to

determine if individual differences influence different types of threat.

Given the number of analyses run, there is a valid concern that the effects that

were found were due to chance (Type I errors). However, since the significant effects

were often in the predicted direction and consistent with theory and past research of

others, one could argue that the likelihood that these effects were due to chance rather

50

than the experimental manipulation is reduced. Regardless, it would be advisable to

conduct future research and to provide converging evidence prior to wholeheartedly

endorsing the explanations and implications of the current work.

This preliminary line of research should be extended and be used to frame a wide

range of persuasive communications (e.g., health-related messages; political speeches;

advertisements) so the audience is more receptive. Future studies should continue to

explore the relationship between threat and affiliation within the consumer realm.

51

REFERENCES

Al-Jarboa, F. A. (1997). An investigation of the effects of mood, type and level of

involvement characterizing consumer products and message framing on

advertising effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:

Humanities and Social Sciences, 57(8-A), 3585.

Arndt, J., Solomon, S., Kasser, T., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004). The Urge to Splurge: A

Terror Management Account of Materialism and Consumer Behavior. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 198-212.

Association, A. P. (2003). Ethics: Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from APA Online

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#8_02

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529.

Benjamin, A. J., Jr., Riggio, R. E., & Mayes, B. T. (1996). Reliability and factor structure

of Budner’s tolerance for ambiguity scale. Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 11(3), 625-632.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”?: Levels of collective identity

and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance for ambiguity as a personal variable. Journal of

Personality, 30, 29-50.

52

Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to

argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81.

Cameron, K., & DeJoy, D. (2006). The Persuasive functions of warnings: Theory and

models. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Chan, S. F. (2005). Consumer decision and product evaluation: Interaction between the

self and the context. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences

and Engineering, 65(7-B), 3691.

Chang, C. (2002). Self-congruency as a cue in different advertising-processing contexts.

Communication Research, 29(5), 503-536.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R.

(1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 34(3), 366-375.

Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2004). Attachment Style and Subjective

Motivations for Sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1076-

1090.

Ferraro, R., Bettman, J. R., & Chartrand, T. L. (in press). The power of strangers: The

effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of

Consumer Research.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and

dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151.

53

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Introduction to the special issue: The psychodynamics of adult

attachments—Bridging the gap between disparate research traditions. Attachment

& Human Development, 4(2), 131-132.

Gailliot, M. T., Schmeichel, B. J., & Maner, J. K. (2007). Differentiating the effects of

self-control and self-esteem on reactions to mortality salience. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 894-901.

Gailliot, M. T., Stillman, T. F., Schmeichel, B. J., Maner, J. K., & Plant, E. A. (2008).

Mortality salience increases adherence to salient norms and values. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 993-1003.

Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of

Consumer Research, 12(3), 281-300.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York, NY:

Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Company.

Golinkoff, R. M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006). Baby Wordsmith: From Associationist to

Social Sophisticate. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(1), 30-33.

Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T.

(2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate

strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2),

281-294.

Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., &

Kenrick, D. T. (in press). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and

persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research

54

Gump, B., B., & Kulik, J. A. (1997). Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 305-319.

Hart, R. P., & Jarvis, S. E. (2002). The American people in crisis: A content analysis.

Political Psychology, 23(3), 417-437.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007) Taste Perception: More than meets the tongue. Journal

of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490-498.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded

rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological

Review, 80(4), 237-251.

Konrath, S., Bushman, B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2006). Attenuating the Link Between

Threatened Egotism and Aggression. Psychological Science, 17(11), 995-1001.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of Marketing. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of estimation of test reliability.

Psychometrika, 2, 151-160.

Kulik, J. A., Mahler, H. I. M., & Earnest, A. (1994). Social comparison and affiliation

under threat: Going beyond the affiliate-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 66(2), 301-309.

55

Li, N. P., Halterman, R. A., Cason, M. J., Knight, G. P., & Maner J. K. (2008). The

stress-affiliation paradigm revisited: Do people prefer the kindness of strangers

or their attractiveness? Journal of Personality and individual Differences, 44,

382-391.

Littig, L. W., & Williams, C. E. (1978). Need for affiliation, self-esteem, and social

distance of black Americans. Motivation and Emotion, 2(4), 369-374.

Lodewijkx, H. F. M., Van Zomeren, M., & Syroit, J. E. M. M. (2005). The anticipation of

a severe initiation: Gender differences in effects on affiliation tendency and group

attraction. Small Group Research, 36, 237-262.

Maheswaran, D., & Agrawal, N. (2004). Motivational and Cultural Variations in

Mortality Salience Effects: Contemplations on Terror Management Theory and

Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 213-218.

Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social

exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine

problem.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55.

Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (2007). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear

and curiosity boost the boons or the banes? Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 103(2), 256-267.

Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message

framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health

Psychology, 23(3), 330-334.

Marin, T. J., Holtzman, S., DeLongis, A., & Robinson, L. (2007). Coping and the

response of others. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(6), 951-969.

56

Mawson, A. R. (2005). Understanding Mass Panic and Other Collective Responses to

Threat and Disaster. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 68(2),

95-113.

McFarland, C., White, K., & Newth, S. (2003). Mood acknowledgment and correction

for the mood-congruency bias in social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 39(5), 483-491.

Mehrabian, A. (1968). An analysis of personality theories. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1974). A theory of affiliation. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Books.

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the Other Cheek:

Agreeableness and the Regulation of Aggression-Related Primes. Psychological

Science, 17(2), 136-142.

Meier, B. P., Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). Bringing out the

agreeableness in everyone: Using a cognitive self-regulation model to reduce

aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1383-1387.

Moskalenko, S., McCauley, C., & Rozin, P. (2006). Group Identification under

Conditions of Threat: College Students’ Attachment to Country, Family,

Ethnicity, Religion, and University Before and After September 11, 2001.

Political Psychology, 27(1), 77-97.

Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious

alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4),

250-256.

57

Park, L. E., Crocker, J., & Mickelson, K. D. (2004). Attachment Styles and

Contingencies of Self-Worth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10),

1243-1254.

Park, E. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2006). “Strength and safety in numbers”: A theoretical

perspective on group influences on approach and avoidance motivation.

Motivation and Emotion, 30, 135-142.

Pereg, D., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Attachment style and the regulation of negative

affect: Exploring individual differences in mood congruency effects on memory

and judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 67-80.

Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary

approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Communications.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to

argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion : Central and

peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Petty, R., & Wegener, D. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and

controversies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a Cue: The Need to

Belong and Enhanced Sensitivity to Social Cues. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095-1107.

Rabbie, J. M. (1963). Differential preference for companionship under threat. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 643-648.

58

Reid, S. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and

ingroup identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 804-817.

Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2004). Terrifying Thoughts, Terrible Materialism?

Contemplations on a Terror Management Account of Materialism and Consumer

Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 219-224.

Robinson, M. D., Meier, B. P., & Solberg, E. C. (2005). What shields some can shackle

others: The approach-related consequences of threat categorizations vary by

agreeableness. European Journal of Personality, 19, 575-594.

Robinson, M. D., Wilkowski, B. M., & Meier, B. P. (2008). Approach, avoidance, and

self-regulatory conflict: An individual differences perspective. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 65-79.

Rofé,Y. (1984). Stress and affiliation: A utility theory. Psychological Review, 91, 235-

250.

Roisman, G. L., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R. C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A.

(2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style:

An empirical rapprochement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

92(4), 678-697.

Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M., Ryan, M. J., & Smith, E.

R. (2008). Arousal, processing, and risk taking: Consequences of intergroup

anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1141-1152.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.

59

Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social

support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 44(5), 1246-1255.

Shehryar, O., & Hunt, D. M. (2005). A Terror Management Perspective on the

Persuasiveness of Fear Appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 275-

287.

Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/avoidance motivation,

message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect.

Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 165-169.

Sitton, S. C., & Wagoner, D. (1978). Females’ response to fear in the stress-affiliation

paradigm. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 147-148.

Smith, C. P., Atkinson, J. W., McClelland, D. C., & Veroff, J. (1992). Motivation and

personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

Solomon, M. R. (2004). Consumer Behavior: buying, having, and being. Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stuckey, M. E. (1989). Getting into the game: The pre-presidential rhetoric of Ronald

Reagan. New York, NY: Praeger.

Taylor, S. E., Cousino Klein, L., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., &

Updegraff, J. T. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend and

befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.

Taylor, D. M.& Dube, L. (1986). Two faces of identity: The “I” and the “We”. Journal of

Social Issues, 42(2), 81-98.

60

Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., &

Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-

befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.

Thomaes, S., Bushman, B. J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping shame by blasts

of noise: Narcissism, self-esteem, shame, and aggression in young adolescents.

Child Development,79(6), 1792-1801.

Updegraff, J. A., Sherman, D. K., Luyster, F. S., & Mann, T. L. (2007). The effects of

message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health

communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 249-257.

Van Duueren, F., & Di Giacomo, J. P. (1997). Degrading situations, affiliation and social

dependency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 495-510.

Wapner, J. (2008, October 14). He counts your words (even the pronouns). The New York

Times, p. D5.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being

ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5),

748-762.

Wilson, J (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language.

Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Wilson, T. G., & Davison, G. C. (1969). Aversion techniques in behavior therapy: Some

theoretical and metatheoretical considerations. Journal of Counseling and

Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 327-329.

61

Wisman, A., & Koole, S. L. (2003). Hiding in the crowd: Can mortality salience promote

affiliation with others who oppose one’s worldviews? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84, 511-526.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily

experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60(1), 154-164.

62

APPENDIX

63

Appendix A

Tolerance for ambiguity

Please respond to the following statements by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with them. Use the following rating scale that best represents your evaluation of the item.

1 Strongly agree

2 Moderately agree

3 Slightly agree

4 Neither agree nor disagree

5 Slightly disagree

6 Moderately disagree

7 Strongly disagree

1. An expert who doesn’t come up with a definite answer probably doesn’t know too

much.

2. I would like to live in a foreign country for a while.

3. There is really no such thing as a problem that can’t be solved.

4. People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living.

5. A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear.

6. It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than to solve a simple one.

7. In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small, simple problems

rather than large and complicated ones.

8. Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who don’t mind being

different and original.

9. What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar.

10. People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don’t know how complicated things

really are.

64

11. A person who leads an even, regular life in which few surprises or unexpected

happenings arise really has a lot to be grateful for.

12. Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufficient information.

13. I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of

the people are complete strangers.

14. Teachers or supervisors who hand out vague assignments give one a chance to show

initiative and originality.

15. The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better.

16. A good teacher is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things.

65

Appendix B

Attachment style

Please select which of the following best describes your feelings.

1. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

2. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

3. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

66

Appendix C

Affiliative Tendency

Please use the following scale to indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements:

1 Very strong agreement 2 Strong agreement 3 Moderate agreement 4 Slight agreement 5 Neither agreement nor disagreement 6 Slight disagreement 7 Moderate disagreement 8 Strong disagreement 9 Very strong disagreement

1. When I’m introduced to someone new, I don’t make much effort to be liked.

2. I prefer a leader who is friendly and easy to talk to over one who is more aloof and

respected by his followers.

3. When I’m not feeling well, I would rather be with others than alone.

4. If I had to choose between the two, I would rather be considered intelligent than

sociable.

5. Having friends is very important to me.

6. I would rather express open appreciation to others most of the time than reserve such

feelings for special occasions.

7. I enjoy a good movie more than a big party.

8. I like to make as many friends as I can.

9. I would rather travel abroad starting my trip alone than with one or two friends.

10. After I meet someone I did not get along with, I spend time thinking about arranging

another, more pleasant meeting.

11. I think that fame is more rewarding than friendship.

12. I prefer independent work to cooperative effort.

13. I think that any experience is more significant when shared with a friend.

14. When I see someone I know walking down the street, I am usually the first one to say

hello.

15. I prefer the independence which comes from lack of attachments to the good and

warm feelings associated with close ties.

16. I join clubs because it is such a good way of making friends.

17. I would rather serve in a position to which my friends had nominated me than be

appointed to an office by a distant national headquarters.

18. I don’t believe in showing overt affection toward friends.

67

19. I would rather go right to sleep at night than talk to someone else about the day’s

activities.

20. I have very few close friends.

21. When I’m with people I don’t know, it doesn’t matter much to me if they like me or

not.

22. If I had to choose, I would rather have strong attachments to my friends than have

them regard me as witty and clever.

23. I prefer individual activities such as crossword puzzles to group ones such as bridge

or canasta.

24. I am much more attracted to warm, open people than I am to standoffish ones.

25. I would rather read an interesting book or go to the movies than spend time with

friends.

26. When traveling, I prefer meeting people to simply enjoying the scenery or going

places alone.

68

Appendix D

Alleged Partner Profile (High Threat Condition)

The profile of your partner is from responses they have provided that describe themselves and is as follows: “One of my dislikes are slow drivers. I hate being stuck behind idiots. It REALLY pisses me off when I honk my horn and they slow down. It’s like their looking for fights and want to annoy me.”.

Overall, your partner scores high on aggression and is easily frustrated.

69

Appendix E

Alleged Partner Profile (Low Threat Condition)

The profile of your partner is from responses they have provided that describe themselves and is as follows: “I dislike traffic, but I try not to let it get to me because I know there’s nothing I can do about it. I don’t understand aggressive drivers and think people who tailgate just make traffic situations worse. I guess everyone has their own way of dealing with things. I prefer just listening to the radio.”.

Overall, your partner scores low on aggression, is patient and empathetic.

70

Appendix F

Affective States

Please use the following scale to indicate to what extent you feel this way right now, at the present moment.

1 Strongly agree

2 Moderately agree

3 Slightly agree

4 Neither agree nor disagree

5 Slightly disagree

6 Moderately disagree

7 Strongly disagree

1. upset

2. strong

3. scared

4. alert

5. nervous

6. jittery

7. afraid

8. anxious

9. uneasy

71

Appendix G

iPod Advertisement: “we/our” source

72

Appendix H

iPod Advertisement: “RAH manufacturer” source

73

Appendix I

Product Evaluation

Please respond to the following statements by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with them. Use the following rating scale that best represents your evaluation of the item.

1 Strongly agree

2 Moderately agree

3 Slightly agree

4 Neither agree nor disagree

5 Slightly disagree

6 Moderately disagree

7 Strongly disagree

1. I like this iPod.

2. I think this iPod would be fun to own.

3. I would want to use this iPod.

4. I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands.

5. I think this iPod seems durable.

6. I think this iPod offers a good value for its price.

7. I think this iPod has an attractive design.

8. I think this iPod has a good variety of features.

9. I would buy this iPod.

74

Appendix J

Ad Recognition Items

Please respond to the following statements by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with them. Use the following rating scale that best represents your evaluation of the item.

1 Strongly agree

2 Moderately agree

3 Slightly agree

4 Neither agree nor disagree

5 Slightly disagree

6 Moderately disagree

7 Strongly disagree

1. This advertisement was difficult to read.

2. This advertisement sounded professional.

3. This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group of people in it.

4. This advertisement reported the gigabyte memory and screen size for the iPod.

5. The iPod model was a touch screen.

6. The make of the iPod was RAH.

7. The iPod came in a variety of colors.

8. This iPod offered a variety of features.

9. When describing the iPod, the advertisement used:

a. A lot of “we” statements (such as, “We know you’re going to love it! Our

customers certainly do!”).

b. A lot of “RAH” statements (such as, “RAH knows you’re going to love it!

Customers certainly do!”).

75

Appendix K

Demographic Questions

Please choose the best option or provide a response to the following questions. 1. What is your sex?

a. Male b. Female

2. What is your age?

*P’s entered in their age 3. What is your race?

a. White or Caucasian

b. Black or African American c. American Indian or Alaskan Native d. Hispanic or Latino e. Asian or Pacific Islander

f. Other

g. Choose not to respond 4. What academic year are you?

a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior

e. 5th year Senior f. non-degree student g. post-baccalaureate student h. Other 5. What is your major?

* P’s entered in their age

76

Table I. Descriptives and Frequencies: Study Design

Condition (Threat by Pronoun)

Frequency Percent

Low-RAH 37 25.5% Low-we 35 24.1% High-Rah 25 17.2% High-we 48 33.1% N=145

Table II. Chi Square Test with item: “When describing the iPod, a lot of (1) we statements were used or (2) a lot of RAH statements were used”

Response Option Observed N Expected N Residual

(1) 105 72.5 32.5 (2) 40 72.5 -32.5

Table III. Chi-Square Test Statistics with item: “When describing the iPod, a lot of (a) we statements were used or (b) a lot of RAH statements were used”

“When describing the iPod, a lot of (a) we statements were used or (b) a lot of RAH statements were used”

Chi-Square 29.14 df 1 Asymp. Sig .001

Table IV. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group of people in it.”

Pronoun Condition N Mean SD

RAH 62 4.18 1.82 we 83 2.11 1.40

Table V. One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement had a picture of a close knit group of people in it.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun condition

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 60.17 .001 Within Groups 143

77

Table VI. Independent Samples T-test with affective states: Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

Affective State F P value

Upset .55 .46 Scared .98 .32 Alert .12 .73 Nervous .41 .52 Jittery 1.76 .19 Afraid .01 .91 Anxious .52 .47 Uneasy 4.10 .05*

Note. *Significant at the .05 level Table VII. Nonsignificant One-way ANOVA’s with affective states as the DV and threat as the IV:

Affective State P value

Upset .95 Scared .72 Alert .09 Nervous .95 Jittery .64 Afraid .85 Anxious .64 Uneasy .69

Table VIII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “alert”

Threat Condition N Mean SD

Low 72 2.67 1.27 High 73 2.30 1.33

Table IX. One-way ANOVA (one-tailed) with DV: “alert”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for threat condition

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 2.87 .05 Within Groups 143

78

Table X. Nonsignificant One-way ANOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and threat as the IV:

Product Evaluation Item P value

I like this iPod .50 I think this iPod would be fun to own .13 I would want to use this iPod .14 I think this iPod seems durable .42 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .81 I think this iPod has an attractive design .71 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .29

Table XI. Correlation Matrix: Product Evaluation Items

Product Evaluation Items

“I would want to use this iPod”

‘I think this iPod

would be fun to

own” “I would want to use this iPod” Pearson

Correlation .471**

P value .001 ‘I think this iPod would be fun to own” Pearson

Correlation .471**

P value .001

Note. **Correlation significant at the .01 level Table XII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “Desire to own Composite”

Pronoun Condition N Mean SD

RAH 62 3.65 1.66 we 83 3.19 1.42

Table XIII. One-way ANOVA (one-tailed) with DV: “Desire to own Composite” Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun condition

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 3.12 .04 Within Groups 143

79

Table XIV. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands.”

Pronoun Condition N Mean SD

RAH 62 2.44 1.44 we 83 2.96 1.53

Table XV. One-way ANOVA with DV: “I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for pronoun

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 4.43 .04 Within Groups 143

Table XVI. Nonsignificant Interactions for Two-way ANOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV:

Product Evaluation Item P value (Interaction)

Desire to own composite .70 I like this iPod .54 I think this iPod would be fun to own .55 I would want to use this iPod .99 I think this iPod seems durable .44 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .51 I think this iPod has an attractive design .18 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .69 I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands .46

Table XVII. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.”

Condition (Threat by Pronoun)

N Mean SD

Low-RAH 37 3.11 1.67 Low-we 35 3.03 1.77 High-RAH 25 2.48 1.33 Low-we 48 2.63 1.23

80

Table XVIII. Two-way ANOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source df F P value

Threat 1 3.88 .05 Pronoun 1 .02 .90 Threat*Pronoun 1 .18 .67 Error 141

Table XIX. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement was difficult to read.”

Threat Condition N Mean SE

Low 72 5.22 .19 High 73 5.72 .20

Table XX. One-way (one-tailed) ANOVA with DV: “This advertisement was difficult to read.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for threat

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 3.34 .04 Within Groups 141

Table XXI. Two-way ANOVA’s with ad recognition items as the DV’s

Ad Recognition Item P value (threat)

P value (pronoun)

P value (interaction)

This advertisement was difficult to read .07 .36 .58

This advertisement sounded professional .15 .48 .56

This advertisement reported the gigabyte memory and screen size for the iPod

.83 .88 .56

The iPod model was a touch screen .91 .86 .87

The make of the iPod was RAH .71 .05* .57

The iPod came in a variety of colors .14 .16 .26 This iPod offered a variety of features .94 .75 .46

Note. *Significant effect for pronoun

81

Table XXII. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANOVA with DV: “The make of this iPod was RAH.”

Condition (Threat by Pronoun)

N Mean SD

Low-RAH 37 1.19 .57 Low-we 35 1.40 1.01 High-RAH 25 1.16 .47 Low-we 48 1.54 1.11

Table XXIII. Two-way ANOVA with DV: “The make of this iPod was RAH.”: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source df F P value

Threat 1 .14 .71 Pronoun 1 3.89 .05 Threat*Pronoun 1 .32 .57 Error 141

Table XXIV. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and ad recognition composite as the covariate:

Product Evaluation Item P value (threat)

P value (pronoun)

P value (interaction)

I like this iPod .32 .74 .55 I think this iPod would be fun to own .16 .58 .55 I would want to use this iPod .34 .53 .10 I think this iPod seems durable .37 .96 .44 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .51 .48 .51 I think this iPod has an attractive design .47 .23 .16 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .81 .66 .67 I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands

.40 .02* .46

Note. *Significant effect for adrecogcomp

82

Table XXV. Descriptive Statistics for Two-way ANCOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.” along with tolerance for ambiguity composite covariate

Condition (Threat by Pronoun)

N Mean SD

Low-RAH 37 3.11 1.70 Low-we 35 3.03 1.77 High-RAH 25 2.48 1.33 Low-we 48 2.63 1.30

Table XXVI. Two-way ANCOVA with DV: “I would buy this iPod.” along with tolerance for ambiguity composite covariate: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source df F P value

Tolambcomp 1 3.71 .06 Threat 1 4.26 .04 Pronoun 1 .10 .75 Threat*Pronoun 1 .11 .74 Error 140

Table XXVII. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and tolerance for ambiguity composite as the covariate:

Product Evaluation Item P value (threat)

P value (pronoun)

P value (interaction)

I like this iPod .38 .77 .61 I think this iPod would be fun to own .21 .26 .60 I would want to use this iPod .41 .23 .97 I think this iPod seems durable .42 .61 .47 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .62 .98 .54 I think this iPod has an attractive design .55 .56 .16 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .87 .36 .65 I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands

.42 .03* .47

Note. *Significant effect for tolambcomp Table XXVIII. Descriptive Statistics for One-way ANOVA with DV: attachment style

Threat Condition N Mean SE

Low 72 1.67 .67 High 73 1.52 .70

83

Table XXIX. One-way (one-tailed) ANOVA with DV: attachment style: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects for threat

Source df F P value

Between Groups 1 1.72 .19 Within Groups 143

Table XXX. Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and affiliative tendency composite as the covariate:

Product Evaluation Item P value (threat)

P value (pronoun)

P value (interaction)

I like this iPod .43 .70 .55 I think this iPod would be fun to own .22 .26 .56 I would want to use this iPod .43 .18 .98 I think this iPod seems durable .43 .68 .45 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .63 .95 .52 I think this iPod has an attractive design .59 .64 .18 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .91 .33 .69 I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands

.43 .03* .46

Note. *Significant effect for afftendcomp Table XXXI. Correlation Matrix: Affective States and Product Evaluation Items

Affective State Product Evaluation Items

“I like this iPod”

“I would want to use this iPod”

“I think this iPod is priced

reasonably compared to other

brands”

“I would buy this iPod”

Upset Pearson Correlation

.16*

P value .05 Nervous Pearson

Correlation -.16* -.19*

P value .05 .03

Note. *Correlation significant at the .05 level

84

Table XXXII. Nonsignificant Two-way ANCOVA’s with product evaluation items as the DV and affective state composite as the covariate:

Product Evaluation Item P value (threat)

P value (pronoun)

P value (interaction)

I like this iPod .47 .61 .47 I think this iPod would be fun to own .25 .20 .48 I would want to use this iPod .46 .19 .89 I think this iPod seems durable .46 .52 .43 I think this iPod offers a good value for its price .63 .89 .54 I think this iPod has an attractive design .60 .66 .19 I think this iPod has a good variety of features .91 .30 .70 I think this iPod is priced reasonably compared to other brands

.39 .03* .54

Note. *Significant effect for affstcomp